Explain the Moral Difference here...

[DarwinsApe]

While still in the womb, my daughter was diagnosed with a sever heart defect. Among the options that the doctors presented to us was "compassionate care." Basically, that means that you have the baby, but give it no treatment. In such a case, the child will die within a week or two. That was never an option that we would consider. But some people no doubt do - because they don't believe that medical treatment will help or for a myriad of other reasons.

Can someone explain to me how this is any more moral than an abortion? Yes..you are letting the child grow to full-term. But, by refusing to give it care that could save its life, aren't you essentially killing it? Murder is murder, no matter what the means, right?

Is there a moral distinction here, in the eyes of Christians?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

While still in the womb, my daughter was diagnosed with a sever heart defect. Among the options that the doctors presented to us was "compassionate care." Basically, that means that you have the baby, but give it no treatment. In such a case, the child will die within a week or two. That was never an option that we would consider. But some people no doubt do - because they don't believe that medical treatment will help or for a myriad of other reasons.

Can someone explain to me how this is any more moral than an abortion? Yes..you are letting the child grow to full-term. But, by refusing to give it care that could save its life, aren't you essentially killing it? Murder is murder, no matter what the means, right?

Is there a moral distinction here, in the eyes of Christians?

In your dichotomy, you have removed the 'care'. Would you elaborate why "by refusing to give it care that could save its life" is the only alternative to the abortion option given or was this simply a bad phrasing and there currently really isn't a viable option that could save the child's life.

I tend to notice inconsistencies like that.

 

[tbird_energizerbunny]

I just do not know......

 

[DarwinsApe]

Christian,

In my daughter's case, there was surgery that could save her life. And of course..we chose to do so. My point is that there are some families who, for whatever reason, opt NOT to have the treatment. (I don't know how many people choose this option. I do know that doctors present it as one of the possible choices for parents to consider. For the record, our doctors never presented abortion as an option to us.)

Do you see a moral distinction between that choice - having the baby but doing nothing afterward - and abortion?

 

[levi501]

In your dichotomy, you have removed the 'care'. Would you elaborate why "by refusing to give it care that could save its life" is the only alternative to the abortion option given or was this simply a bad phrasing and there currently really isn't a viable option that could save the child's life.

I tend to notice inconsistencies like that.

there is no dichotomy or inconsistency... he's asking you to compare two choices and offer your justification for any moral difference. His post doesn't suggest that these are the only two options. Man you really tend to jump to conclusions when you see the atheists tag in someone's post.


*edit - didn't see Darwins post in time.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Christian,

In my daughter's case, there was surgery that could save her life. And of course..we chose to do so. My point is that there are some families who, for whatever reason, opt NOT to have the treatment. (I don't know how many people choose this option. I do know that doctors present it as one of the possible choices for parents to consider. For the record, our doctors never presented abortion as an option to us.)

Do you see a moral distinction between that choice - having the baby but doing nothing afterward - and abortion?

Well, I'm sorry that you had to go through that, but I'm glad that you were able to (and chose to) save your daughter. My wife and I were also faced with a decision during our pregnency, we were given the option to have more tests done to determine whether the child would be born with a handicap or not. We considered and didn't even opt for the testing - the results of the testing would only give more information for the option of abortion or continue with the pregnency. Our daughter ended up perfectly healthy and a blessing BTW.

As for your question: yes, I see a distinction. It removes the possibility of hope and places the decision for ending the life in the hands of the person rather than God. Not everyone is of the same mind though.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

there is no dichotomy or inconsistency... he's asking you to compare two choices and offer your justification for any moral difference. His post doesn't suggest that these are the only two options. Man you really tend to jump to conclusions when you see the atheists tag in someone's post.


*edit - didn't see Darwins post in time.

Perhaps you would do best tending your own field, thank you.

 

[levi501]

Perhaps you would do best tending your own field, thank you.

or not

sorry bro, you accuse someone of a fallacy that isn't there... Im going to call you out on it.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

or not

sorry bro, you accuse someone of a fallacy that isn't there... Im going to call you out on it.

And when your 'call out' is shown to be in error, it reflects poorly on you as this example has shown.

It was advice, I don't expect you to see the benefit of it, but it was worth a shot. Can we get back to the OP or is there more personal objection that you would like to vent?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

DarwinsApe, this may help you understand the Christian (or Jewish) perspective:



2 Samuel 12:15-23

15 After Nathan had gone home, the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife had borne to David, and he became ill. 16 David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and went into his house and spent the nights lying on the ground. 17 The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them.

18 On the seventh day the child died. David's servants were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they thought, "While the child was still living, we spoke to David but he would not listen to us. How can we tell him the child is dead? He may do something desperate."

19 David noticed that his servants were whispering among themselves and he realized the child was dead. "Is the child dead?" he asked.
"Yes," they replied, "he is dead."

20 Then David got up from the ground. After he had washed, put on lotions and changed his clothes, he went into the house of the LORD and worshiped. Then he went to his own house, and at his request they served him food, and he ate.

21 His servants asked him, "Why are you acting this way? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept, but now that the child is dead, you get up and eat!" 22 He answered, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, 'Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to me and let the child live.' 23 But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."

 

[DarwinsApe]

CC,

Thanks for the perspective.

The situation facing my daughter - and parent with children like her - is different, though. It's been demonstrated that kids with her heart defect CANNOT survive without surgery. Her physiology simply wouldn't allow it.

God does NOT perform miracles on these children, unfortunately.

And keep this in mid: people who opt for "compassionate care" understand that the child will die. They've made that choice.

So, given that they are making that choice with their eyes wide open as to the consequences...why is it any different from opting for an abortion?

 

[levi501]

And when your 'call out' is shown to be in error, it reflects poorly on you as this example has shown.

Can your reading comprehension possibly be this poor?
Darwin's 2nd post illustrated your assumption and accusation of a false dichotomy to be unjustified. Of course in the OP when he says "Among the options that the doctors presented to us.." should've clued you in this wasn't the only alternative to abortion.
I'm calling you out on this because you're always so quick to accuse people of logically fallacies that aren't there and thus diverting people's attention. And I understand this is a diversion from the OP, but so was your initial post and quite frankly more people need to start calling you out on this.

 

[KTskater]

That's rough, I'm sorry...

As far as morality goes, I don't think it counts as murder. You are not intentionally killing the baby. But if there is teatment that won't have horrible side-effects that may save the baby then you should use the medication. besides that, if there is no reasonable way to help the baby it's not murder...just a very painful situation for everyone.

 

[DarwinsApe]

Why isn't it murder?

If you choose to withhold treatment that could save a child's life...and that child dies. You've killed the child, right?

Murder requires Intent. I would argue that people who opt for "compassionate care" - and some do so for religious reasons - demonstrate the intent to kill. They aren't deluded about their actions. Everyone understands what will happen.

 

[KTskater]

Why isn't it murder?

If you choose to withhold treatment that could save a child's life...and that child dies. You've killed the child, right?

Murder requires Intent. I would argue that people who opt for "compassionate care" - and some do so for religious reasons - demonstrate the intent to kill. They aren't deluded about their actions. Everyone understands what will happen.

I spacificly said that if the treatment would not help the child, then it is not murder. If it could save the child then you should opt for the medication.

 

[DarwinsApe]

Well...in this case, the surgery WOULD help the child. In fact, it would save his or her life.

But there are still parents who opt not to have it.

Isn't that murder?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

CC,

Thanks for the perspective.

The situation facing my daughter - and parent with children like her - is different, though. It's been demonstrated that kids with her heart defect CANNOT survive without surgery. Her physiology simply wouldn't allow it.

God does NOT perform miracles on these children, unfortunately.

And keep this in mid: people who opt for "compassionate care" understand that the child will die. They've made that choice.

So, given that they are making that choice with their eyes wide open as to the consequences...why is it any different from opting for an abortion?

Well, you will have to forgive me for not agreeing with your statement in declaring what God does not do. In fact, I consider our daughter to be a product of a miracle. Simply because efforts were not taken to establish that there was in fact 'something definitely wrong' as opposed to simply an abnormality that may indicate something more, doesn't dictate that I should consider God as not being active in our situation. Yes, it is a faith thing, but my faith thing none-the-less.

It still comes back to my original answer: An abortion removes hope and places the decision in the hands of man vs. God. Your scenario however, is loaded. Not that that makes it an illegitimate question, but it is formed a specific way as to force it to fit a certain condition. You have removed the choice of a legitimate remedy, but you are correct in saying that there is a myriad of reasons why someone would opt to not have the surgery (one of which would be religious reasons - I think there is a religious belief against surgery, but I forget at the moment which religion that would be). In that situation, the distinction is only slight, but I can't exactly say that allowing the natural procession to continue is necessarily sin. Not giving care may be in faith or not, but either way, the people involved didn't by default bring about this situation (presumably).

Do I hold the action different to what I would choose against someone? I would prefer the child be given a chance and would have sorrow at any lose of life, but it is ultimately between God and them. My involvement would limited in the advocacy in defense of the child's life and pleading with the parent to consider what God would have them do... or simply to consider God. Of course, there are boundaries in how I can properly act on that involvement, but simply to remain silent while innocence is sacrificed or keeping to myself the understanding of God (because He has revealed things we ought to know) would likewise be sin for me.
You see, a Christian is compelled to serve God, being stagnant or useless is not an option. My service to God isn't dependent upon whether or not I am successful in the advocacy or the saving of one child or millions of children; it is dependent on my doing or not doing.

Again, I hope that helps in understanding.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Can your reading comprehension possibly be this poor?
Darwin's 2nd post illustrated your assumption and accusation of a false dichotomy to be unjustified. Of course in the OP when he says "Among the options that the doctors presented to us.." should've clued you in this wasn't the only alternative to abortion.
I'm calling you out on this because you're always so quick to accuse people of logically fallacies that aren't there and thus diverting people's attention. And I understand this is a diversion from the OP, but so was your initial post and quite frankly more people need to start calling you out on this.

I don't believe that you were elevated to forum moderator level.

The inconsistency was in my understanding what was being asked - that there were two options given: abortion or not providing care that would save the life. The third option would be the implied: give care that would save the life. I asked why the third was removed or whether or not it was simply bad phrasing or implied my misunderstanding. Apparently DarwinsApe was civil enough to communicate further regarding my not understanding what he was asking. The question has been responded to and I am content with knowing that it was simply 'due to the ambiguous reason(s) the parent has'. You however can't seem to overcome yourself in the matter.

Bah-bye.

 

[Phred]

Well...in this case, the surgery WOULD help the child. In fact, it would save his or her life.

But there are still parents who opt not to have it.

Isn't that murder?

Technically, no. Murder is legally considered to be causing another person's death thru illegal means. Homocide is the causing of another person's death via any means. All murders are homocides but not all homocides are murders. However, neither of these is represenative of allowing someone to die because their body won't support their life. That's called death by natural causes.

Now, in some cases a parent or parents can be held liable for the death of their child thru negligence. If their choice of "leaving it up to God" is found to be negligent, then action can be taken against them. However, the charge would be manslaughter, not murder.

However, minus the "murder" term your question is about the difference between aborting a fetus with a defect that might die and carrying that fetus to term and then letting the child die. Either way you are making a choice to let the child die. In the first instance you are taking an active role in this choice, in the latter a passive role. I would say the only difference is that the parents can blame their chosen diety for the latter, but not the former. Either way, the kid's dead.

 

[Seeking...]

I don't think there is a moral distinction - as I don't believe either act to be neccesarily immoral. There really isn't enough info to make a decision. Was it just one surgery that would be required with a darn near 100% success rate? Was it a possible series of surgeries with a much lower success rate and likely lifelong problems?

I'm not willing to condemn any child of mine to an existence I woulnd not choose to live. Some parents would rather a child have a peaceful, if short, life - rather than pain, invasive surgery, and lifelong disability for a longer life.

Some treatments are worse than the disease, I don't consider it murder for a parent to wish to spare their child that...